ORDER : 1. This civil revision under Section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short "CPC") has been filed being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 29.09.2021 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jobat, District-Alirajpur (M.P.) in Civil Suit No.5-A/2019 whereby an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners/plaintiffs have filed a suit before the learned trial court for declaration and removal of unauthorised construction and taking possession of the house and agricultural land and for permanent injunction against the respondents with a prayer to quash the mutation order dated 07.04.1992 of Tahsildar, Chandra Shekhar Azad Nagar (Bhabhara), District-Alirajpur (M.P.) and to declare the petitioners as owner of the disputed agricultural land. 3. After service to respondent No.1, he appeared before the Trial Court and submitted his written statement on 19.06.2019 and thereafter, issues were framed and subsequently, the petitioners submitted an affidavit under Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC of their witnesses. In the meantime, respondent No.1 died on 24.08.2019 thereafter, the legal heirs of respondent No.1 as respondent Nos.2 to 11 were brought on record. The legal representatives of respondent No.1 filed a counter claim on 15.06.2021 after a delay of 2 years and also filed an application for temporary injunction against the petitioners. After submission of aforementioned counter claim, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC before the trial court and prayed for quashing the counter claim filed by the legal representatives of the respondent No.1, however, the trial court has dismissed the said application by the impugned order. Against which, the present civil revision has been filed before this Court. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs has submitted that the Trial Court has committed grave error of law and facts in passing the impugned order whereby the application was arbitrarily and illegally been dismissed. The order passed by the trial court is against the settled principles of law and against the provisions of CPC. The trial court has committed grave error of law and facts in allowing the counter claim of the respondent No.1, which has been moved with an ulterior motive and to cover the lacuna in the written statement filed by them in the suit. The trial court has committed grave error of law and facts in allowing the counter claim of the respondent No.1, which has been moved with an ulterior motive and to cover the lacuna in the written statement filed by them in the suit. Hence, he prays that the impugned order be set aside and further, counter claim filed by the respondents be dismissed. 5. None present on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 10 though notices have been served upon them. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners/plaintiffs has placed reliance upon judgment delivered in the cases of Vijay Prakash Jarath Vs. Tej Prakash Jarath 2016 (11) SCC 800 and Amanulla Khan Vs. Zaheer Khan 2001 (1) MPWN 140 . 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The sole question in the present petition is that "whether the counter claim filed by the legal representatives of defendant No.1 after the death of defendant No.1 of which cause of action arose on 14.01.2021, after about two years from the submission of written statement by original defendant No.1 i.e. Leemchand, can be entertained?" 8. It is undisputed fact that the present respondent Nos.1 to 10 are legal representatives of Late Shri Leemchand, who was defendant No.1 in civil suit No.5-A/2019 and after the death of Shri Leemchand, the present respondent Nos.1 to 10 are impleaded as defendants in suit. It is also undisputed fact that in the written statement filed by Late Shri Leemchand, there was no counter claim and after the death of Shri Leemchand and after impleaded as defendants being legal representatives of Late Leemchand, the alleged counter claim has been filed by respondent Nos.1 to 10 and thereby they raised objection on plaintiff's case on various grounds and sought permanent injunction against the plaintiff/petitioner for not interfering in the suit land in respect of their possession. 9. 9. The concerning paragraphs which can be said to be as counter claim is in paragraph No.18 to 24 and the same are reproduced herein as below:- ^^;g fd mDr okn esa oknhx.k dh vksj ls ,d vkosnu vkns'k 39 fu;e 1 o 2 lhihlh dk izLrqr fd;k fdUrq izfroknh fyepUnz ds ikl cVokjs ds nLrkost ugh gksus ls izLrqr ugha dj ldk ftlls] oknhx.k dk vkosnu Lohdkj gks x;kA 19- ;g fd vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk ds vkns'k es dsoy ;g vkns'k fn;k x;k Fkk fd okn ds fujkdj.k rd izfrokn fyePkUnz iDdk fuekZ.k dk;Z ugha djs fdUrq mDr vkns'k dh vkM+ esa oknhx.k ds }kjk oknxzLr Hkwfe esa gLr{ksi fd;k tk jgk gS tcfd izfroknhx.k ds 2 dPps edku vksj 2 iDds edku okn xzLr Hkwfe ij dbZ o"kksZ iwoZ ls cus gqos gSA 20- ;g fd fnukad 14-01-2021 dks oknhx.k us tehu dh ckr dks ysdj yM+kbZ >xM+k dj xkyh xyksp fd;k vksj Hkwfe ij dCtk djus dh dksf'kl dh gSA ftldh fjiksVZ izfroknh us pUnz'ks[kj vktkn uxj Fkkus ij dh gSA 21- ;g fd mDRk vLFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dh vkM+ esa oknhx.k ckj ckj /kedh ns jgs gS os izfroknhx.k dks oknxzLr Hkwfe ls csn[ky dj dCtk dj ysaxsA bl dkj.k izfroknh Øekad&1 ds okfjlku~ dks ;g Økl Dyse izLrqr djuk vko';d gqvk gSA 22- ;gfd oknhx.k vius mn~ns'; esa lQy gks x;s rks izfroknh Øekad&1 ds okfjlu dks vifjfer gkuh gksxh vksj mls viuh Hkwfe ls oafpr gksuk iMs+xkA bl dkj.k oknhx.k ds fo:) LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk dh lgk;rk izfroknh Øekad&1 ds okfjlku~ pkgrs gSA 23- ;gfd izfroknh Øekad&1 ds okfjl mDr Økl Dyse dk ewY;kadu 500 :i;s dj U;k;'kqYd :i;s 100@& vnk djrs gSA izfroknh Øekad&1 ds okfjlku us mDr U;k;k'kqYd dh jkf'k :i;s 100@& vkuykbZu dksVZ Qh vkbZ Mh Øekad&44819@2021 ds ek/;e ls vnk dh gSA 24- ;g fd izfroknhx.k fuEu lgk;rk dh vf/k;kpuk oknhx.k ds fo:) djrs gS fd %& v- oknhx.k ds fo:) vksj izfroknh Øekad&1 yhepUnz firk tksfr;k ds okfjlku~ ds i{k esa bl vk'k; dh LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk tkjh dh tkos fd oknhx.k oknxzLr Hkwfe esa fdlh izdkj ls gLr{ksi ugha djs vksj ugha oknxzLr Hkwfe ls izfroknh Øekad&1 yhepUnz firk tksfr;k ds okfjlku~ dks csn[ky djsA c- vU; dksbZ lgk;rk tks Jheku~ mfpr le>s og Hkh izfroknh Øekad&1 ds okfjlku~ dks fnykbZ tkosA l- bl Økl Dyse dk O;; Hkh izfroknh Øekad&1 ds okfjlku~ dks oknhx.k ls fnyk;k tkosA 10. Therefore, it is clear that for cause of action which arose on 14.01.2021, the counter claim has been filed. 11. The Order 8 Rule 6-A(1) of CPC provides that "A defendant in a suit may, in addition to his right of pleading a set-off under rule 6, set up, by way of counter claim against the claim of the plaintiff, any right or claim in respect of a cause of action accruing to the defendant against the plaintiff either before or after the filing of the suit but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired, whether such counter-claim is in the nature of a claim for damages or not: Provided that such counter-claim shall not exceed the pecuniary limits of the jurisdiction of the Court." 12. As per provision of Order 8 Rule 6-A(1), any right or claim of which cause of action accrues to defendant against the plaintiff, before or after filing of suit, but before the defendant has delivered his defence or before the time limited for delivering his defence has expired, a counter claim can be filed by the defendant. Undisputedly, in the case in hand, the counter claim was filed on the cause of action which arose on 14.01.2021, on the stage of plaintiff's evidence. Therefore, it is clear that the counter claim filed by the respondent Nos.1 to 10 is based on the cause of action which arose on 14.01.2021, which are much after the filing of suit and submission of written statement by original defendant No.1-Late Shri Leemchand. 13. In case of Ashok Kumar Kalra Vs. Wing Cdr. Surendra Agnihotri and others, (2020) 2 SCC 394 , Hon'ble Apex Court has held that Order 8 Rule 6-A CPC does not put an embargo on filing the counter claim after filing the written statement, rather the restriction is only with respect to the accrual of the cause of action. In case of Vijay Prakash Jarath Vs. Tej Prakash Jarath 2016 (11) SCC 800 Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "cause of action in respect of which counter claim can be filed, should accrue before defendant has delivered his defence, namely, before defendant has filed a written statement. Similarly, in case of Amanulla Khan Vs. In case of Vijay Prakash Jarath Vs. Tej Prakash Jarath 2016 (11) SCC 800 Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "cause of action in respect of which counter claim can be filed, should accrue before defendant has delivered his defence, namely, before defendant has filed a written statement. Similarly, in case of Amanulla Khan Vs. Zaheer Khan 2001 (1) MPWN 140 , this Court has held that "if cause of action arose after filing of written statement- no counter claim on such cause of action can be filed." 14. In view of the provisions of Order 8 Rule 6-A of Code of Civil Procedure and the citations referred herein above and as per the circumstances of this case, I am of the considered view that the learned Trial Court has fallen into error by accepting the counter claim because the counter claim was filed on the cause of action which arose on 14.01.2021, much after the filing of suit and submission of written statement by original defendant No.1-Late Shri Leemchand. In result to that, the civil revision is allowed and the impugned order is hereby set aside. However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.